Intelligence in dinosaurs

[Moontanman]

Most mainstream science assumes that dinosaurs had an Encephalization Quotient that was far too low to have allowed intelligence on a hominid level. How ever recent work with birds has reveled that mammal EQ ratios do not apply to birds. The brains of birds would seem to operate differently than mammals with smaller brains allowing complex behaviors. Birds being dinosaurs is accepted as mainstream science so the next question is could intelligent dinosaurs have existed?

 

Many might say immediately that we would have seen the fossils by now but to be fossilized is such a rare event that we know that only a tiny fraction of extinct animals ever fossilize.

 

So could we have missed them? if so how advanced could they have become and "us" still miss them?

 

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090713/trent-a.shtml

 

 

 

 

Clever Bird Brains

Troodons' brains put them on par with modern-day birds. So how smart does that make them?

The phrase "birdbrain" is no longer the insult it once was. Recent studies of birds show they can be quite clever and resourceful, and they even use tools. The Caledonian crow has been known to shape leaves into "hooks," which it then lowers into crevices to scoop out tasty insects. It passes this knowledge on to its offspring.^[23]

 

 

 

 

 

 

These images still don't tell the story.. if there was one, they assume an EQ of human stature is needed, but what if the Bird Brain is a better model? How big would the brain have needed to be? A crow can use tools, has a language and transmits "culture" to it's offspring so could a dinosaur of a more bird EQ have existed and we missed it even if we did find the fossils?

 

What could we expect to find after 65,000,000 years? How much technology could they have developed and still be missing from the fossil record?

 

Could such dinosaurs have achieved space travel and still be missing from the fossil record?

[Semjase]

Many alien contacts have been reported with

reptilian alien species, their generally feared.

They probably evolved form dinosaur type creatures.

[cladking]

Human intelligence is grossly exaggerated. Nearly 50,000 years of human advancement and most individuals can't answer questions about even the most basic science. Even those who can answer questions can do so only because they have been educated in science and not because they are intelligent. It is not intelligence that created technology, it is language.

 

This leaves us to try to fathom the nature of intelligence in animals without even an understanding of what it means to be that animal. Feline metaphysics are very different than canine. We understand none of their languages except for a single word here and there. If we did understand a species and its language we might see they are not stupid as it appears by their poor usage and understanding of human languages. If we don't truly understand what intelligence in humans is then we can't understand it in other species. Perhaps no other species has the ability to pass down complicated ideas to off spring other than through example. This is extremely limiting to the species but does not necessarily reflect at all on true intelligence.

[Moontanman]

Many alien contacts have been reported with

reptilian alien species, their generally feared.

They probably evolved form dinosaur type creatures.

 

I will admit Semjase you do have a unique perspective on this. I would love to see some support for that assertion...

 

Human intelligence is grossly exaggerated. Nearly 50,000 years of human advancement and most individuals can't answer questions about even the most basic science. Even those who can answer questions can do so only because they have been educated in science and not because they are intelligent. It is not intelligence that created technology, it is language.

 

That is an interesting assertion, I'm not sure how it relates to the OP but I would like to see some support for this.

 

 

This leaves us to try to fathom the nature of intelligence in animals without even an understanding of what it means to be that animal. Feline metaphysics are very different than canine. We understand none of their languages except for a single word here and there. If we did understand a species and its language we might see they are not stupid as it appears by their poor usage and understanding of human languages. If we don't truly understand what intelligence in humans is then we can't understand it in other species. Perhaps no other species has the ability to pass down complicated ideas to off spring other than through example. This is extremely limiting to the species but does not necessarily reflect at all on true intelligence.

 

I agree with the bolded part of this statement but I'm not sure how this paragraph relates to the OP, can you elaborate?

[Ringer]

There has been quite a bit of speculation on things such as that. Many Dinosaurs were pack hunters which usually allows for more intelligence (social animals tend to have higher levels of intelligence). Many seem to believe that Dinosaurs such as Troodontidae could have been extremely intelligent by reptile standards. It could have been possible that there were quite a large number of dinosaurs that had relatively high intelligence but evolutionary pressures didn't necessarily favor those traits, obviously that is quite speculative though.

 

The main problem is we don't have a good definition for what intelligence is, or what physiological characteristics cause intelligence. So it is quite possible the intelligence of birds, and ancient equivalents, have different characteristics than mammalian intelligence, similar to how birds four chambered heart and mammalian four chambered hearts differ due to separate evolutionary origins.

[Moontanman]

There has been quite a bit of speculation on things such as that. Many Dinosaurs were pack hunters which usually allows for more intelligence (social animals tend to have higher levels of intelligence). Many seem to believe that Dinosaurs such as Troodontidae could have been extremely intelligent by reptile standards. It could have been possible that there were quite a large number of dinosaurs that had relatively high intelligence but evolutionary pressures didn't necessarily favor those traits, obviously that is quite speculative though.

 

The main problem is we don't have a good definition for what intelligence is, or what physiological characteristics cause intelligence. So it is quite possible the intelligence of birds, and ancient equivalents, have different characteristics than mammalian intelligence, similar to how birds four chambered heart and mammalian four chambered hearts differ due to separate evolutionary origins.

 

 

I have to agree, we really don't know that EQ is a good indicator of intelligence, there are fish whose brain to body ratio is higher than humans but they don't build cities either.

 

i think it's quite possible that Dinosaur brains and the EQ are readily comparable. T-Rex had a brain as massive as a chimp, I'm not sure a T-Rex was as dumb as some would have us believe just because it's body was large.

 

But the question remains would intelligent dinosaurs have left anything behind we could see as evidence of their existence?

 

Would our civilization still be easily recognized 65,000,000 years from now?

[Semjase]

 

I will admit Semjase you do have a unique perspective on this. I would love to see some support for that assertion...

 

 

 

 

There are 3 cases here of human reptilian involvement

this stuff is not for the faint hearted

 

One of the earliest reports was that of Ashland, Nebraska police officer Herbert Schirmer, who claims to have been taken aboard a UFO in 1967 by humanoid beings with a slightly reptilian appearance, who wore a "winged serpent" emblem on the left side of their chests.^[6]

 

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/04/indiana-man-abducted-by-reptilian.html

 

http://naturalplane.blogspot.ca/2010/04/update-former-police-officer-recalls.html

[Moontanman]

 

There are 3 cases here of human reptilian involvement

this stuff is not for the faint hearted

 

One of the earliest reports was that of Ashland, Nebraska police officer Herbert Schirmer, who claims to have been taken aboard a UFO in 1967 by humanoid beings with a slightly reptilian appearance, who wore a "winged serpent" emblem on the left side of their chests.^[6]

 

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/04/indiana-man-abducted-by-reptilian.html

 

http://naturalplane.blogspot.ca/2010/04/update-former-police-officer-recalls.html

 

 

I guess i asked for it but this is not evidence of anything but some guy said something....

 

If dinosaurs are visiting us now isn't the topic... Anyway, to be back on topic, some people have given some thought to the effect humans are having on the biosphere now and it can be thought of a mass extinction comparable to the K/T boundary in the fossil record.

 

Is that the only discernible record our civilization will leave 65,000,000 years from now?

[too-open-minded]

Crows are smart, if you grow crops. You learn this right quick.

Pesky crows...

 

Anyways I don't know, I think a reptile could become relatively intelligent to us. They would need to hunt as packs, use tools, follow the same evolutionary steps we have. I wouldn't think the size of their brain be much of an issue. I think environment would.

 

There very well could have likely been an intelligent reptile, I mean reptiles ruled the food chain then. They were the food chain. However a cold environment such as the last ice age wouldn't have suited any reptile well. Which might be why their isn't one today.

 

Look at the Civet and the Fossa. Both animals are catlike. Are they really catlike? Or is the shape that a cat has with claws and a tail happen to be shaped by environment and make an expert hunter?

 

Our humanoid shape, I think other types of animals could acheive it. with an intelligence to match.

[SamBridge]

Most mainstream science assumes that dinosaurs had an Encephalization Quotient that was far too low to have allowed intelligence on a hominid level. How ever recent work with birds has reveled that mammal EQ ratios do not apply to birds. The brains of birds would seem to operate differently than mammals with smaller brains allowing complex behaviors. Birds being dinosaurs is accepted as mainstream science so the next question is could intelligent dinosaurs have existed?

 

Many might say immediately that we would have seen the fossils by now but to be fossilized is such a rare event that we know that only a tiny fraction of extinct animals ever fossilize.

 

So could we have missed them? if so how advanced could they have become and "us" still miss them?

 

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090713/trent-a.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These images still don't tell the story.. if there was one, they assume an EQ of human stature is needed, but what if the Bird Brain is a better model? How big would the brain have needed to be? A crow can use tools, has a language and transmits "culture" to it's offspring so could a dinosaur of a more bird EQ have existed and we missed it even if we did find the fossils?

 

What could we expect to find after 65,000,000 years? How much technology could they have developed and still be missing from the fossil record?

 

Could such dinosaurs have achieved space travel and still be missing from the fossil record?

I'm not really sure that aliens were involved, I don't think so, but it's pretty possible given that they had millions of years to evolve, and frankly it just doesn't make sense that they wouldn't be at least somewhat smart like some of today's animals are and Frankly the scientists had little evidence to base those assertions on, they were wrong about many different aspects of dinosaurs, ranging from some species having feathers like certain raptors to animals taking care of their young like t-Rex which originally were thought to not do so.. There use to be pretty intelligent alligators that for some reason went extinct, I can't remember what they were called though, I saw some yahoo article on it 3-4 years ago, some googling will probably find them.

it's also fairly measurable that many birds have high emotional capacities, some almost to the extent of human teenagers, like certain species of parakeets and parrots, geese, lovebirds, maybe ducks too, ect.

Edited January 16, 2013 by SamBridge

[ajb]

Most mainstream science assumes that dinosaurs had an Encephalization Quotient that was far too low to have allowed intelligence on a hominid level. How ever recent work with birds has reveled that mammal EQ ratios do not apply to birds. The brains of birds would seem to operate differently than mammals with smaller brains allowing complex behaviors. Birds being dinosaurs is accepted as mainstream science so the next question is could intelligent dinosaurs have existed?

 

I don't think that any dinosaurs were any thing like as intelligent as humans. But given the fact that we do know that some birds use simple tools, and ravens will make toys from sticks, it is interesting to conjecture that some dinosaurs may have done the same.

 

Also and dinosaur that hunted in packs would need some fairly developed communications skills, similar to that of lions or hunting dogs. This would suggest some level of intelligence.

 

Maybe we need to attract a good palaeontologist to this forum!

 

 

And just for fun...

 

 

A Silurian (circa 1970)

 

 

A Sea Devil (circa 1972)

[Moontanman]

Crows are smart, if you grow crops. You learn this right quick.

Pesky crows...

 

Anyways I don't know, I think a reptile could become relatively intelligent to us. They would need to hunt as packs, use tools, follow the same evolutionary steps we have. I wouldn't think the size of their brain be much of an issue. I think environment would.

 

There very well could have likely been an intelligent reptile, I mean reptiles ruled the food chain then. They were the food chain. However a cold environment such as the last ice age wouldn't have suited any reptile well. Which might be why their isn't one today.

 

Look at the Civet and the Fossa. Both animals are catlike. Are they really catlike? Or is the shape that a cat has with claws and a tail happen to be shaped by environment and make an expert hunter?

 

Our humanoid shape, I think other types of animals could acheive it. with an intelligence to match.

 

 

When you say reptiles I am going to assume you mean dinosaurs... Dinosaurs were warm blooded just like birds and many of them had feathers for warmth and are known from fossils that were above the arctic circle during the age of dinosaurs... ...

[SamBridge]

 

I don't think that any dinosaurs were any thing like as intelligent as humans.

 

Just watch Jersey Shore, you will see that dinosaurs were in fact MORE intelligent than some humans.

[michel123456]

 

 

I guess i asked for it but this is not evidence of anything but some guy said something....

 

If dinosaurs are visiting us now isn't the topic... Anyway, to be back on topic, some people have given some thought to the effect humans are having on the biosphere now and it can be thought of a mass extinction comparable to the K/T boundary in the fossil record.

 

Is that the only discernible record our civilization will leave 65,000,000 years from now?

(bolded mine)

 

I remember a respected professor of mine arguing that everything from our civilisation will be lost in a few thousand years. The only thing that would last, maybe, would be the highways and only on places where huge change in the landscape are involved.

[cladking]

 

 

 

That is an interesting assertion, I'm not sure how it relates to the OP but I would like to see some support for this.

 

 

 

This is merely pure logic; if you don't know what intelligence is in humans it is probably impossible for a human to recognize intelligence anywhere. It seems very probable that the very nature of intelligence varies between species. Human intelligence is founded largely on language since humans largely use language to think. No animal can pass learning to its offspring without either example or complicated language. Other animals have neither.

 

It is readily apparent humans misapprehend the nature of intelligence. We can't measure it and can't define it in mathmatical terms. It's easiest to think of it as the abilty to learn and manipulate knowledge but it's far more complex and has hundreds of facets. Dinosaur intelligence would be different and equally complex.

[Moontanman]

 

This is merely pure logic; if you don't know what intelligence is in humans it is probably impossible for a human to recognize intelligence anywhere. It seems very probable that the very nature of intelligence varies between species. Human intelligence is founded largely on language since humans largely use language to think. No animal can pass learning to its offspring without either example or complicated language. Other animals have neither.

 

It is readily apparent humans misapprehend the nature of intelligence. We can't measure it and can't define it in mathmatical terms. It's easiest to think of it as the abilty to learn and manipulate knowledge but it's far more complex and has hundreds of facets. Dinosaur intelligence would be different and equally complex.

 

 

Who says humans cannot know what intelligence is in humans?

[cladking]

 

 

Who says humans cannot know what intelligence is in humans?

 

I do. I can't imagine what makes anyone think he is intelligent or know its nature.

 

Just the fact that we experience something doesn't mean we are experiencing it correctly. We use words to understand everything including our thoughts but words can be deconstructed. We can't model the real world in our minds except from specific perspectives at best. Other people will arrive at diametrically opposed positions using the same logic, premises, and evidence because of language.

 

Consider that even the simplest questions about math and nature are beyond most peoples' ability to answer. Two of the worst groups for being able to answer whether or not an airplane could take off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction at the same speed are airline pilots and people in aviation. These people aren't stupid but are merely highlighting the human condition and the fact that most people don't understand the wheel, or they can't maintain a single perspective in consideration of simple problems.

 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as human intelligence merely that very few things are so exaggerated. Humans can't even learn any animal languages and have to teach animals our language. I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate animal intelligence at least relative to the reality of human intelligence. The understanding that is required to be a cat is very different than that to be human. How are we to relate to something so alien or to express it in human terms.

[SamBridge]

 

I do. I can't imagine what makes anyone think he is intelligent or know its nature.

 

Just the fact that we experience something doesn't mean we are experiencing it correctly. We use words to understand everything including our thoughts but words can be deconstructed. We can't model the real world in our minds except from specific perspectives at best. Other people will arrive at diametrically opposed positions using the same logic, premises, and evidence because of language.

 

Consider that even the simplest questions about math and nature are beyond most peoples' ability to answer. Two of the worst groups for being able to answer whether or not an airplane could take off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction at the same speed are airline pilots and people in aviation. These people aren't stupid but are merely highlighting the human condition and the fact that most people don't understand the wheel, or they can't maintain a single perspective in consideration of simple problems.

 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as human intelligence merely that very few things are so exaggerated. Humans can't even learn any animal languages and have to teach animals our language. I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate animal intelligence at least relative to the reality of human intelligence. The understanding that is required to be a cat is very different than that to be human. How are we to relate to something so alien or to express it in human terms.

I suppose I see what your saying in a sense, that out definition of intelligence is subjective to our own experiences of it, but still a lot of what your saying just does't make sense. There is no correct or incorrect way to experience something, you experience whatever you experience and no science or religion can deny that.

You say that most people can't understand the wheel, but we wouldn't have gotten here today unless many many smart people existed in the past and worked together. While many animals scientifically exhibit clear signs of intelligence, they are not measured to be able to do it at the highest levels as a human's highest levels. Many animals can count, but not to numbers like 100, except of course a few mammals like obviously maybe some primates and dolphins, but the smartest reptiles can only count to less than 20. Some lived in groups and would have developed social adaptations, others not so much, same with any species.

Animals don't have defined language, most know basic verbal ques orally by observing others of their kind or by instinct, but they don't know complex language, they have no way to organize their thoughts into terms of words. The people you are talking about are more like extremists, even orthodox religious people definitely understand how a wheel works and recognize that animals can think and reason and feel things, that old time is more or less dying at out time progresses. Otherwise the other problems related to this issue are caused by environment, such as when growing up and with media. Meat industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hide the image of many animals being, slaughtered, and buy politicians...er sorry, "Hire Lobbyists", to make greater restrictions on documenting industrial farms and meat packing and slaughter houses. In developed worlds this is part of the reason why people tend to not think about animal "rights" so much, but of course there is also the environmental issue where people just aren't use to thinking so open minded about every single little thing, because honestly it take a lot of energy, it takes physically more brain calories to constantly think and analyze, I can't say I blame everyone for not wanting to think all the time, especially when they have a real hard job or a hard life, but progress will be made as time progresses is my guess, but these ethics don't really impair the ability to do scientific investigations as well as use cognitive abilities that you mentioned. So far out investigations have concluded that dinosaurs were more intelligent that what was originally assumed,and that's about all we know about them. If we find certain fossil patterns, perhaps a field where 3 dinosaurs acted exactly as coordinated as a pack of wolves to catch what appears to be a natural prey of theirs, we can make another little step and say they were intelligent to coordinate with each other in some manner like wolves, which means they would also have to have enhanced social abilities and social structure, but then again, perhaps not, we don't know a lot about them, and they are something like 65 million years old.

Edited January 17, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

 

I do. I can't imagine what makes anyone think he is intelligent or know its nature.

 

Sadly what you can't imagine is not relevant, if you make an assertion you need to back it up with science not your lack of imagination...

 

Just the fact that we experience something doesn't mean we are experiencing it correctly. We use words to understand everything including our thoughts but words can be deconstructed. We can't model the real world in our minds except from specific perspectives at best. Other people will arrive at diametrically opposed positions using the same logic, premises, and evidence because of language.

 

Again, this is an assertion that needs to be backed up. I can see your point but not everything is due to perspective, the sky is blue and 2+2=4 in any language no matter the words used...

 

Consider that even the simplest questions about math and nature are beyond most peoples' ability to answer. Two of the worst groups for being able to answer whether or not an airplane could take off from a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction at the same speed are airline pilots and people in aviation. These people aren't stupid but are merely highlighting the human condition and the fact that most people don't understand the wheel, or they can't maintain a single perspective in consideration of simple problems.

 

Again this needs some back up.

 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as human intelligence merely that very few things are so exaggerated. Humans can't even learn any animal languages and have to teach animals our language. I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate animal intelligence at least relative to the reality of human intelligence. The understanding that is required to be a cat is very different than that to be human. How are we to relate to something so alien or to express it in human terms.

 

I tend to agree with some of this but it still needs some back up and it is off topic to the OP...

 

(bolded mine)

 

I remember a respected professor of mine arguing that everything from our civilisation will be lost in a few thousand years. The only thing that would last, maybe, would be the highways and only on places where huge change in the landscape are involved.

 

I've read where road signs would be likely to last a very long time, I'm not sure about missions of years but tens of thousands at least.

 

If I remember correctly the show "After Man" suggested that bronze statues might be the only thing left after millions of years...

 

 

 

 

Maybe we need to attract a good palaeontologist to this forum!

 

 

 

 

That would be interesting for sure, lots of things to discuss in that context, the ancient past does seem to crop up here quite often.

 

What we could expect to see in the fossil record if there had been intelligent dinosaurs would be very interesting...

[cladking]

There is no correct or incorrect way to experience something, you experience whatever you experience and no science or religion can deny that.

 

Sure there is. Experiencing the weather improperly can lead to your death if you don't seek shelter. Everything we do and feel can be experienced improperly and can lead to disaster or even war.

 

Yes, we tend to have experiences that conform to our beliefs because our actions are caused by our beliefs and what we see is a confirmation of those beliefs. But if you mistake a rare natural phenomenon as the rapture and fall to your death you're still dead and still wrong. When you're raised into heaven then your beliefs are vindicated. This applies much more to the mundane where people read instruments like thermometers improperly and proceed on "false experience" which can lead to significant trouble.

 

People typically experience things wrong.

 

While many animals scientifically exhibit clear signs of intelligence, they are not measured to be able to do it at the highest levels as a human's highest levels. Many animals can count, but not to numbers like 100, except of course a few mammals like obviously maybe some primates and dolphins, but the smartest reptiles can only count to less than 20.

 

 

I'm sure the metaphysics of being something like a frog wouldn't include very much counting. A frog essentially just sticks out its tongue and a bug appears on it. It doesn't experience vision and doesn't know why bug land on his ourtstretched tongue and doesn't need to. It merely needs to know about the best conditions for sticking out his tongue. Perhaps frogs can exhibit true genius in this determination but how are we to know. It seems to me that we can safely assume the ancestors of every living frog had at least a piece of genius. Other animals are more complicated and might need the concept of counting. But without knowing their metaphysics how are we to know whether thay are counting by some means we don't see? Perhaps they are using base three or some system that is more complex like variable bases. Certainly dogs and some other animals can be taught our numbers and might even use some approximation of our numbers in life. But other animals might not be able to translate the concept of "6" as a single action, sound, or concept. It might just not be able to translate its knowledge of "6" into something we recognize. Does this make them stupid or us?

 

 

Animals don't have defined language, most know basic verbal ques orally by observing others of their kind or by instinct, but they don't know complex language, they have no way to organize their thoughts into terms of words.

 

Very much agreed. There are languages which we don't understand (besides all of them) but it does seem apparent that none of these languages are sufficiently complex to pass down intricate learning. However two things need to be remembered before dismissing this concept out of hand. I believe and have extensive evidence to support the idea that natural languages as could be developed by animals are like computer code and even a limited vocabulary can arranged to convey very complex ideas. Also it is known from observation that some animals are adept at communicating surprisingly complicated ideas and descriptions to other individuals of its kind. Crows, for instance, can warn other crows of threats that are not present including a description of individual humans!! This suggests there is a lot of communication going on of which we are not privvy and it might be a great deal.

 

It's a big world out there and life is going on all around us. People can't see it because we're on a 4000 year detour.

 

This doesn't make animals stupid, it means people are confused.

 

Again, this is an assertion that needs to be backed up. I can see your point but not everything is due to perspective, the sky is blue and 2+2=4 in any language no matter the words used...

 

 

That the sky is blue is superstition. Anyone can look up at night and see it's black with specks of light making compex patterns on it. During the day it can be white, tan, orange and a multitude of other colors. Even the blues vary in intensity and cohesiveness. We don't know if the blue one person experiences is the same as that another does. We haven't even defined what the "sky" is and it's being pronounced "blue" which might have no meaning as well. Is the sky just upward or is it some definable part of the atmosphere. At what altitude does the sky cease to appear "blue" to most observers? Is this blue the natural color of the sky or some refraction of the light passing through it? We make countless assumptions like 2 + 2 must equal 4 but without units neither 2 nor 2 exists so neither can 4. With units the coincept loses its cohesiveness altogether because every single thing on God's green earth is unique so you can't have two of them.

 

If people can think so much differently than one another then why should we simply assume that to the degree a dinosaur can act like us it must be intelligent? Who died and left people in charge of defining the nature of intelligence. The fact that we have failed at this definition is certainly relevant to trying to understand the intelligence of an animal that no longer even exists except as fossils. Humans mistake our science and technology as intelligence and they are nothing of the sort. They are a manifestation of language as surely as the ancient science was the manifestation of language and the "words of the gods". We apprehend ourselves and are in no position to "rate" other animals in any way until we both understand their language and their metaphysics. Then we can speak of the intelligence or lack thereof in frogs.

[Moontanman]

Come on guys, while this is an interesting direction of inquiry it is completely off topic, feel free to start another thread, I would be glad to participate but let this thread continue on the topic of dinosaurs and whether or not we could detect a dinosaur civilization through the geologic column...

[SamBridge]

 

 

Sure there is. Experiencing the weather improperly can lead to your death if you don't seek shelter.

Why is it improper to experience weather that can kill you? So what? If you think something, then you think something, that's it, you can't go back in time, and besides, your definition of "improper" easily various from other people, so there is still no "universal" improper way of anything.

 

 

I'm sure the metaphysics of being something like a frog wouldn't include very much counting. A frog essentially just sticks out its tongue and a bug appears on it. It doesn't experience vision and doesn't know why bug land on his ourtstretched tongue and doesn't need to. It merely needs to know about the best conditions for sticking out his tongue. Perhaps frogs can exhibit true genius in this determination but how are we to know. It seems to me that we can safely assume the ancestors of every living frog had at least a piece of genius. Other animals are more complicated and might need the concept of counting. But without knowing their metaphysics how are we to know whether thay are counting by some means we don't see? Perhaps they are using base three or some system that is more complex like variable bases. Certainly dogs and some other animals can be taught our numbers and might even use some approximation of our numbers in life. But other animals might not be able to translate the concept of "6" as a single action, sound, or concept. It might just not be able to translate its knowledge of "6" into something we recognize. Does this make them stupid or us?

No, frog's and many other animals definitely perceive the outside environment and have "vision", even plants can experience the outside world to some extent. Metaphysics isn't really real physics, its essentially philosophy, and you don't need to consciously count something every time you do something. If you walk up stairs without thinking about the stairs, you're counting without knowing it. Animals have their own perceptions, but logic is logic regardless of who's perceiving it, math is math regardless of who's perceiving it, the universe is the universe regardless of who's perceiving it. Frogs likely aren't geniuses, so they have a unique view that is the property of them having their view and no one else, so does every other living thing.

 

 

 

Very much agreed. There are languages which we don't understand (besides all of them) but it does seem apparent that none of these languages are sufficiently complex to pass down intricate learning. However two things need to be remembered before dismissing this concept out of hand. I believe and have extensive evidence to support the idea that natural languages as could be developed by animals are like computer code and even a limited vocabulary can arranged to convey very complex ideas. Also it is known from observation that some animals are adept at communicating surprisingly complicated ideas and descriptions to other individuals of its kind. Crows, for instance, can warn other crows of threats that are not present including a description of individual humans!! This suggests there is a lot of communication going on of which we are not privvy and it might be a great deal.

 

A lot of animals have at least some memory capabilities, they can reflect on the past in some way, a great deal probably can assign certain feelings to certain other objects or living things or assign vocalizations to other living things, but it seems it usually isn't as complicated as it sounds, many things do that all the time and without thinking.

 

That the sky is blue is superstition. Anyone can look up at night and see it's black with specks of light making compex patterns on it. During the day it can be white, tan, orange and a multitude of other colors. Even the blues vary in intensity and cohesiveness. We don't know if the blue one person experiences is the same as that another does. We haven't even defined what the "sky" is and it's being pronounced "blue" which might have no meaning as well. Is the sky just upward or is it some definable part of the atmosphere. At what altitude does the sky cease to appear "blue" to most observers? Is this blue the natural color of the sky or some refraction of the light passing through it? We make countless assumptions like 2 + 2 must equal 4 but without units neither 2 nor 2 exists so neither can 4. With units the coincept loses its cohesiveness altogether because every single thing on God's green earth is unique so you can't have two of them.

 

If people can think so much differently than one another then why should we simply assume that to the degree a dinosaur can act like us it must be intelligent? Who died and left people in charge of defining the nature of intelligence. The fact that we have failed at this definition is certainly relevant to trying to understand the intelligence of an animal that no longer even exists except as fossils. Humans mistake our science and technology as intelligence and they are nothing of the sort. They are a manifestation of language as surely as the ancient science was the manifestation of language and the "words of the gods". We apprehend ourselves and are in no position to "rate" other animals in any way until we both understand their language and their metaphysics. Then we can speak of the intelligence or lack thereof in frogs.

"The sky is always blue" isn't a true statement, unless you'r a certain type of jungle cat, then it is always blue. But anyway, it's still true that "when sunlight shines upon the atmosphere, certain particles in the atmosphere reflect light that has a frequency equal to the range of blue optical light". A lot of animals are also colorblind.

When animals cooperate enough with us we can measure their intelligence to some extent, and combined with observing them in nature we can get a clearer picture. Many animals even though they probably do consciously experience the physical world, do not appear to consciously think and reason through most problems. It doesn't mean they can't or don't ever do it, but based on the level that we see this, we can extrapolate that in general humans have a greater cognitive ability than at least most animals.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Can this be brought back on topic or do these last few posts need to be split off to their own thread? If the answer is more derailment, perhaps some deletion would be more appropriate?

[SamBridge]

Well I don't know, the topic is the intelligence of dinosaurs, and everyone here seems to be debating how intelligent they were or how likely it is that they were intelligent.

[Moontanman]

yes, feel free to make a new thread, the last few posts have been interesting but the nature of intelligence is not what this thread is about.